Search This Blog

Section 366 read with 34 IPC =acquitted = PW.4 is the doctor, who examined PW.2 and issued certificate stating that she is aged about 18 years. The prosecution claims that PW.2 was forcibly abducted. In the cross examination, PW.2 admits that there was a love affair between her and accused No.1 and she was not confined in the house for five months. The admission of PW.2 that they witnessed movies, worked in the factory for two months, continued to live for five months clearly shows that there was no force on her and she was not confined. The evidence of PW.2 clearly shows that she voluntarily resided with accused No.1 for five months. In case of appeal against acquittal the scope of appeal is circumscribed by limitation. Unless the approach of lower Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by manifest illegality or conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse, no interference with the order of acquittal is permissible.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 442 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (3)
and (1) Cr.P.C. by the State, challenging the judgment
dated 18.05.2006 passed in S.C.No.366 of 2004 on the
file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ramachandrapuram, wherein the accused were
acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections
366 read with 34 IPC.
For the sake of convenience, the parties will
hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in S.C.
The facts in issue are as under:
On 17.10.2003 at about 7.00 p.m. while the victim
girl was going to tuition, one white colour ambassador
car came there; her cousin-accused No.2 asked her to
board the car stating that he will drop in the tuition
and forcibly made her to board the Car. Accused
Nos.3 and 4 were already present in the car. Accused
No.2 gave chips and asked her to eat. After some time
she became unconscious. When she gained
consciousness, she was traveling in the train. Accused
Nos.2 to 4 told that accused No.1 loved her and if she
refuses to marry him, they will die by jumping from
the train. On 18.10.2003 she was taken to the house of
accused No.1 at Nacharam. Both of them lived in a
separate house for three months. Accused No.1 used
to come to the house in late night by consuming
alcohol. When the victim girl was suffering with ill
health accused No.1 left the place and the same was
informed to her parents through one Kumari.
Basing
on these allegations a charge sheet came to be filed,
which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.31 of 2004 and on
committal it was numbered as S.C.No.366 of 2004.
On appearance of the accused, the material was
perused and on being satisfied, charges under Section
366 read with 34 IPC was framed, read over and
explained to the accused in telugu, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
In support
of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and
got marked Exs.P1 to P7. After closure of the
prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.
313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material
available on record, but the same was denied by the
accused. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was
produced on behalf of the accused.
After analyzing the evidence available on record,
the trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the
ingredients constituting the offence punishable under
Section 366 IPC are not made out.
Challenging the
same the appeal is filed by the State.
PW.1 is the mother of the victim. She deposed
that PW.2 (victim) was missing along with gold
jewellery and cash from 17.10.2003. She deposed that
she gave complaint under Ex.P1 which was registered
under the head “girl missing”.
PW.2 is the victim. In her evidence, she deposed
that on 17.10.2003 while she was returning along with
cash, accused No.2 came in ambassador car; forcibly
took her into car and made her to sit. She noticed
accused No.3 and 4 in the car, who forcibly caught
hold of her and beat her. Accused No.1 took her to
Hyderabad, where he used to come in drunken state,
beat her, did not allow her to talk on phone and
confined her in a house. She informed the same to her
parents through one Kumari.
PW.3 is the father of victim. He deposed that the
date of birth of the victim is 26.03.2003.PW.4 is the
doctor, who examined PW.2 and issued certificate
stating that she is aged about 18 years.
PW.6 is the
head constable, who received the complaint from
PW.1 and issued Ex.P.5 F.I.R.
PW.7 is the investigating
officer, who investigated into the matter and filed the
charge sheet.The prosecution claims that PW.2 was forcibly
abducted. In the cross examination, PW.2 admits that
there was a love affair between her and accused No.1
and she was not confined in the house for five months.
PW.7 the investigating officer also stated that PW.2
was not allowed to talk but not confined.The
admission of PW.2 that they witnessed movies, worked
in the factory for two months, continued to live for five
months clearly shows that there was no force on her
and she was not confined. The evidence of PW.2
clearly shows that she voluntarily resided with
accused No.1 for five months.
In case of appeal against acquittal the scope of
appeal is circumscribed by limitation. Unless the
approach of lower Court to the consideration of
evidence is vitiated by manifest illegality or
conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse,
no interference with the order of acquittal is
permissible.
In Mrinal Das Vs. State of Tripura
[1]
the Apex
Court held as under:
It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the
absence of perversity in the judgment and order,
interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is
heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact,
is fully competent to re- appreciate, reconsider and
review the evidence and take its own decision. In other
words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction
or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate
court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in
mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of
the accused. The presumption of innocence is available
to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person
is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by
the competent court. If two reasonable views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the
appellate court should not disturb the findings of
acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate court to review the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is found and to come to its own
conclusion. The appellate court can also review the
conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to
both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of
the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on
record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons
set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of
acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the
order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason
for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the
evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored
material documents like dying declaration/report of
ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent
to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on
the materials placed.
In Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh
[2]
the Apex Court held that there can be no
two opinions that merely because the acquittal is
found to be wrong and another view can be taken, the
judgment of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate
Court has more and serious responsibility while
dealing with the judgment of acquittal and unless the
acquittal is found to be perverse or not at all
supportable and where the appellate Court comes to
the conclusion that conviction is a must, the judgment
of acquittal cannot be upset. The appellate Court has
to examine as to whether the trial Court, while
upsetting the acquittal, has taken such care.
In view of the Judgments referred to above and
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that there are no merits in the
appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming
the judgment dated 18.05.2006 passed in S.C.No.366
of 2004 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge,
Ramachandrapuram.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if
any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
04.04.2016
gkv
[1]
(2011) 9 SCC 479
[2]
(2011) 8 SCC 635

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …